Actions or proceedings appealed from district courts shall be tried according to the principles of law and equity, and when the same conflict the principles of equity shall prevail. No warrant, motion or other pleading shall be dismissed by reason of a mere defect, irregularity or omission in the proceedings in the district court, or in the form of any such pleading, when the same may be corrected by a proper order of the court of record. In any such case the court of record shall retain the same, with full power to direct all necessary amendments, to enter orders and direct proceedings to correct such defects, irregularities and omissions, to promote substantial justice to all parties, and to bring about a trial of the merits of the controversy. In any case where an appeal is taken by a defendant the circuit court may direct amendments to increase the amount of the claim above the jurisdictional amount set forth in § 16.1-77. This section shall be liberally construed, to the end that justice is not delayed or denied by reason of errors in the pleadings or in the form of the proceedings.
1986, c. 45; 1997, c. 753; 2007, c. 869.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
26
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case:
Hutchins v. Carrillo, 500 S.E.2d 277 (Va. Ct. App. 1998).
Hutchins v. Carrillo, 500 S.E.2d 277 (Va. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 21× “2d 134 (1997), the circuit court concluded it could not rely upon Code § 16.1-114.1 to obtain jurisdiction over father’s appeal.”
Commonwealth v. Keel, 29 Va. Cir. 276 (Richmond County Cir. Ct. 1992).
· cites it 7× “This argument is based upon Va. Code § 16.1-114.1 which effectively forbids remand or dismissal of “actions or proceedings appealed or removed from district courts” where such remand or dismissal would be based upon defective pleadings or proceedings in the district court.”
Scheer v. Isaacs, 392 S.E.2d 201 (Va. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 2× “in no way abrogates the mandatory provisions of Code § 16.1-107, which require a bond in an appeal of a civil case.”
Commonwealth ex rel. May v. Walker, 485 S.E.2d 134 (Va. 1997).
· cites it 4× “*323 We also reject the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that, based upon Code § 16.1-114.1, “equitable considerations” dictated that, under the facts of the present case, the Circuit Court obtained jurisdiction.”
Christen Erickson Smiley v. Michael D. Erickson, 512 S.E.2d 842 (Va. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “In Walker , the Court rejected the notion that “equitable considerations” found in Code § 16.1-114.1 could allow the circuit court to obtain jurisdiction in the absence of a bond.”
Commonwealth/DSS v. Raymond M. Walker, 468 S.E.2d 695 (Va. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 8× “204, 205 (citing predecessor to current Code § 16.1-114.1 3 ). Just as “a deficient appeal bond does not [rjequire dismissal of [an] appeal,” Burks v.”
Khan v. Washington, 74 Va. Cir. 95 (Alexandria Cir. Ct. 2007).
· cites it 3× “As to Plaintiffs request to increase the ad damnum clause, Virginia Code § 16.1-114.1 provides, in pertinent part: In any case where an appeal is taken by a defendant, the circuit court may direct amendments to increase the amount of the claim above the jurisdictional amount set…”
Jill Ruderman v. Kathy Pritchard (Va. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 8× “Code § 16.1-114.1 provides generally that the circuit court, in an action appealed from a district court, has the authority to permit some amendments to the pleadings.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.